Karnataka High Court
Sri. Rakesh K V vs State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2021
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8439/2021
BETWEEN
SRI. RAKESH K.V.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O. LATE VENKATACHALAIAH K.N.
PROPRIETOR
M/S. S.R. PROPERTIES
RESIDENT OF NO.413, 24TH CROSS
BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 070.
ALSO R/AT NO.4, 6TH A MAIN
4TH CROSS, PAPPAIAH GARDEN
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCE))
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
WOMEN'S POLICE STATION
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.117/2021
REGISTERED BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 354, 420, 323, 324, 406, 504 AND 506 READ WITH
SECTION 120(B) OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.117/2021 registered by Basavanagudi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 420, 323, 324, 120B, 406, 504 and 506 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of Smt. Geetha Gurudev, the police registered a case on 29.07.2021 for the aforesaid offence. It is alleged 3 by the complainant that she came in contact with accused No.1 with whom she disclosed the matters relating to her family and financial problems. Accused No.1 said that the said hurdles were due to black magic done to her family and it would be removed, if pooja is conducted. Believing the said version, the complainant and her husband arranged Rs.1,42,51,470/- and by obtaining loan of Rs.30,00,000/- from her friends, paid total sum of Rs.1,72,51,471/- to accused No.1. Subsequently, the complainant also came in contact with the petitioner- accused No.3, to whom the complainant transferred the sum of Rs.1,90,90,000/-. The complainant has stated that she has totally paid the sum of Rs.4,41,12,720/- to the accused persons and they have misappropriated the amount and cheated her. The petitioner was arrested on 02.09.2021 and he has been remanded to judicial custody.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an agreement holder intended to purchase the property from one Venkatesh and he entered 4 into an agreement with the said Venkatesh on 4.7.2019. Subsequently, he entered into an agreement of sale with one Jayashree vide order dated 31.07.2020. In the meanwhile, the petitioner intended to sell the property which was purchased from on Venkatesh and the complainant agreed to purchase the same from the petitioner. The petitioner has not received Rs.3,15,00,000/-. But the police after registering the case on 29.7.2021, by bringing the petitioner-accused No.3 into the police station got obtained his signature and created an agreement of sale dated 02.09.2021 and as per this agreement, the petitioner agreed to sell the property to the complainant for Rs.3,15,00,000/-. Investigation is still under progress. The petitioner is in custody for more than two months. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be issued by this Court.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State however, supported the case of the prosecution.
5
6. On the perusal of the records, It reveals that the complainant is said to have given the amount of Rs.1,72,51,471/- to one Jayashree (accused No.1). An agreement of sale dated 31.07.2020 is produced by the petitioner stating he has entered into an agreement for purchase of site No.30, Byatarayanapura Mysore Road. Based upon the said agreement, he also entered into an agreement with accused No.1 for selling the same property for Rs.2,30,00,000/-. It appears that accused No.1 has entered in to an agreement of sale with complainant and he has received money from complainant. Subsequently, on 02.09.2021. an agreement was said to be entered with the complainant for Rs.3,15,00,000/-, though the said agreement was entered into subsequent to the registration of the F.I.R. as stated by the learned Senior counsel, the police took the petitioner to their custody and forcibly got signed the said agreement of sale. Whether this agreement is genuine or not is a matter of investigation. If at all, the agreement is genuine, the complainant has to 6 get enforce the agreement by executing the sale in her favour, after filing a civil suit. Some of the accused is absconding. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if the petitioner is released on bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of prosecution. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The respondent - Police are directed to release the petitioner-accused No.3 on bail Crime No.117/2021 registered by Basavanagudi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 420, 323, 324, 120B, 406, 504 and 506 of IPC, subject to the following conditions;
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court;7
(ii) Petitioner shall surrender within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;
(iii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;
(iv) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
tamper with any of the prosecution
witnesses;
(v) Petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody
for the purpose of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs 8 KNJ: CRL.P.No.8439/2021 02.12.2021 ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo 'For Being Spoken To' for making necessary corrections in the operative portion of the order dated 24.11.2021 as the present petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P. C. Perused the order dated 24.11.2021. There is an error in by inserting "the police" in the operative portion in Page No.6 Paragraph No.1, line No.1 should be corrected as "the jurisdictional magistrate" and there is also an error in bail condition Nos.2 and 5 and the same have to be deleted. Therefore, the said mistakes deserves to be corrected. The memo for being spoken to is allowed.
9
It is directed to delete in the operative portion in Page No.6 Paragraph No.1, line No.1 is corrected as "
the jurisdictional magistrate" instead of "the police"
and the bail condition Nos. 2 and 5 are directed to be deleted.
Ordered accordingly.
The present order shall be read conjointly along with the earlier order dated 24.11.2021.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV